Monday, October 11, 2010

Gun Carry Permits in New Jersey

North Jersey.com published an opinion piece by Linda E. Fisher, law professor in the Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice. In supporting the long-standing New Jersey policy regarding justification of needing to carry a gun outside the home prior to the issuance of a permit, she made a very important point which often goes overlooked.

Because the carry-permit law limits the situations in which the presence of a gun in public can cause a sudden escalation of violence, it serves to reduce the number of accidental shootings, homicides and serious injuries that plague far too many of our communities.

While opponents of gun regulation invariably claim that only law-abiding gun owners are affected by regulations on gun use, the reality is that gun violence is, tragically, not limited to known criminals.

21 comments:

According to some data I found online, I have a 1 in 44 chance of being a victim of violent crime simply by leaving my home state of PA, where I carry legally for self-defense on a daily basis, and crossing the river into Camden, NJ, where I can no longer defend myself legally. That's almost seven times more dangerous than my time in Iraq (335 per 100,000), which is a freakin' warzone! How are those gun control laws working out again?

By the way, Camden has a whopping 2114 violent crimes per 100K people, but you can also tack on another 5978 per 100K property crimes to get a true picture of the crime rate there. I'm not sure if the 335/100K figure for Iraq counts just deaths, or includes injuries (you can Google that one for yourself). If it's only deaths, and the wounded totals are about 6 times the fatalities, that would make Camden merely on par with a war zone. BTW, the "trickery" I employed was to use actual facts, not just the vague wishy washy feelings used by the original article Mike linked to. Try doing the same some time; you might find you like it.

It's comparing apples to oranges. Iraq is a country; Camden is a city.

When you try to compare a homicide rate of 335 for an entire country--of which most of the country sees little or no violence---it really puts it in perspective when you consider the homicide rate for the entire US is about 5.

That 335/100K number isn't Iraqis, it's US soldiers. While Camden doesn't exactly equal Operation Iraqi Freedom, my point was that I was as safe if not safer when I was serving my country in Iraq than when I visit Camden, NJ (such as when I try to catch a concert at the Susquehanna Bank Center). I even had a gun in Iraq, whereas the great state of NJ in its infinite wisdom doesn't see fit to allow me the means to effectively defend myself. And which part of Iraq sees little or no violence exactly?

Jade, don't try to tell me about Iraq if you haven't been there. I spent 25 months of my life in that country, and believe me when I tell you that the violence is wherever someone in a DCU or ACU uniform is. There are also "whole parts" of that country that are only inhabited by a few nomads and lots of sheep and camels, so of course the violence is generally concentrated in the major cities, something so obvious that even you were able to point out. As for cold, hard facts, the numbers say that Iraq was at worst no more dangerous than Camden, NJ, and potentially much safer. Especially since I wore Level IV body armor, carried an M4 and generally rode around in an armored vehicle. The state of New Jersey tends to frown on those things (obviously the body armor and tank part of that is a joke). Having been to both places, I definitely felt safer in Iraq, where at least I had a weapon (and several hundred of my friends with weapons watching my back).

Mike, I'm not at all racist; you were the first person to bring race into this (yet again, I might add). My point is that despite NJ having strict gun laws, there's still lots of violent crime at least in Camden, whether it's committed with a gun or no. A person is just as dead if they were shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife (or in their home when it was burned down--arson was also in those statistics). It's even right across the river from Philly, which means that in what is essentially one large city (as you've pointed out previously, Mike) the part that allows concealed carry has a violent crime rate almost half (although admittedly still 3x the national average) of Camden's where concealed carry isn't allowed by NJ law. Here's the link to THOSE statistics, so you can check it for yourself: http://philadelphia.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Laci, do some research and use facts when you try to argue; it will improve your success rate. Here, I even started it off for you: "Results from NICS 2006/07 reveal that 14.2% of all households and their adult occupants were victims of at least one crime during the 12 months prior to interview." (http://www.nio.gov.uk/national-statistics-on-crime-rates/media-detail.htm?newsID=14942)

Or how about this one: http://www.psni.police.uk/1._recorded_crime_200910.pdf. Here we find Northern Ireland's overall violent crime rate of 33,100. Divide that by a generous estimation of its population, 1.8 million, and you get a violent crime rate of 1,839 per 100,000. Then we go to the FBI's website (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2008) and we find the US violent crime rate is: "There were an estimated 454.5 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2008."

According to my rudimentary math skills, the US's violent crime rate of 454/100K is about a quarter of Northern Ireland's 1,839/100K, so it doesn't really matter where you "felt" safer now does it?

The Holding from Heller:In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Note I have bolded the following phrases:Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights--that means a background check

permit him to register--should be pretty clear, but you are not the brightest bulb in the box. Note the word "register".

issue him a license--Again, that should be clear enough even for you to understand anonymous, but note the word "licence".

No, Laci, I don't. I'm not a full time statistician or public policy maker. I'm just a man with a computer proving that with just a modicum of research I can find at least an approximation of the actual truth, rather than just stating my feelings. I'm sure my research wouldn't stand up to scholarly review, but like I said, it's close enough for gubmint work. At least I bring something to the discussion other than vague claims COMPLETELY unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever.

Heller & Mcdonald DID NOT rule as to whether licensing or registration violated the 2nd Amendment.

Why? Because that was not at issue in the case. The constitutionality of licensing and/or registration was not challenged by the plaintiffs in either case, nor did the Court say whether or not such schemes were Constitutional.